docs(fr): fix typos

Remove all references to deleted phase-4 agent personas from French
documentation, matching upcoming PR #2020 changes:

- Remove agent personas: dev/Amelia, pm/John, qa/Quinn, sm/Bob,
  quick-flow-solo-dev/Barry, bmad-master
- Replace deleted agent skill invocations with equivalent workflow skills
  (bmad-dev-story, bmad-qa-generate-e2e-tests, bmad-quick-dev, etc.)
- Depersonalize QA references ("Quinn" → "QA Intégré" / "Workflow QA")
- Simplify workflow invocation instructions (remove "invoke agent" pattern)
- Fix upgrade-to-v6.md SM/Scrum Master references

docs/fr/how-to/customize-bmad.md

@@ -69,10 +69,10 @@ Remplacer la personnalité, le rôle et le style de communication de l'agent :
 persona:
   role: 'Ingénieur Full-Stack Senior'
   identity: 'Habite dans un ananas (au fond de la mer)'
-  communication_style: 'Style agaçant de Bob l’Éponge'
+  communication_style: 'Style agaçant de Bob l\'Éponge'
   principles:
-    - 'Jamais de nidification, les devs Bob l’Éponge détestent plus de 2 niveaux d’imbrication'
-    - 'Privilégier la composition à l’héritage'
+    - 'Jamais de nidification, les devs Bob l\'Éponge détestent plus de 2 niveaux d\'imbrication'
+    - 'Privilégier la composition à l\'héritage'
 ```
 
 La section `persona`[^1] remplace entièrement le persona par défaut, donc incluez les quatre champs si vous la définissez.
@@ -85,7 +85,7 @@ Ajouter un contexte persistant que l'agent gardera toujours en mémoire :
 memories:
   - 'Travaille au Krusty Krab'
   - 'Célébrité préférée : David Hasslehoff'
-  - 'Appris dans l’Epic 1 que ce n’est pas cool de faire semblant que les tests ont passé'
+  - 'Appris dans l\'Epic 1 que ce n\'est pas cool de faire semblant que les tests ont passé'
 ```
 
 **Éléments de menu**
@@ -108,7 +108,7 @@ Définir des instructions qui s'exécutent au démarrage de l'agent :
 
 ```yaml
 critical_actions:
-  - 'Vérifier les pipelines CI avec le Skill XYZ et alerter l’utilisateur au réveil si quelque chose nécessite une attention urgente'
+  - 'Vérifier les pipelines CI avec le Skill XYZ et alerter l\'utilisateur au réveil si quelque chose nécessite une attention urgente'
 ```
 
 **Prompts personnalisés**

package-lock.json

@@ -7230,9 +7230,9 @@
       "license": "ISC"
     },
     "node_modules/h3": {
-      "version": "1.15.8",
-      "resolved": "https://registry.npmjs.org/h3/-/h3-1.15.8.tgz",
-      "integrity": "sha512-iOH6Vl8mGd9nNfu9C0IZ+GuOAfJHcyf3VriQxWaSWIB76Fg4BnFuk4cxBxjmQSSxJS664+pgjP6e7VBnUzFfcg==",
+      "version": "1.15.5",
+      "resolved": "https://registry.npmjs.org/h3/-/h3-1.15.5.tgz",
+      "integrity": "sha512-xEyq3rSl+dhGX2Lm0+eFQIAzlDN6Fs0EcC4f7BNUmzaRX/PTzeuM+Tr2lHB8FoXggsQIeXLj8EDVgs5ywxyxmg==",
       "dev": true,
       "license": "MIT",
       "dependencies": {

src/bmm-skills/4-implementation/bmad-code-review/steps/step-02-review.md

@@ -13,20 +13,27 @@ failed_layers: '' # set at runtime: comma-separated list of layers that failed o
 
 ## INSTRUCTIONS
 
-1. If `{review_mode}` = `"no-spec"`, note to the user: "Acceptance Auditor skipped — no spec file provided."
+1. Launch parallel subagents. Each subagent gets NO conversation history from this session:
 
-2. Launch parallel subagents without conversation context. If subagents are not available, generate prompt files in `{implementation_artifacts}` — one per reviewer role below — and HALT. Ask the user to run each in a separate session (ideally a different LLM) and paste back the findings. When findings are pasted, resume from this point and proceed to step 3.
+   - **Blind Hunter** -- Invoke the `bmad-review-adversarial-general` skill in a subagent. Pass `content` = `{diff_output}` only. No spec, no project access.
 
-   - **Blind Hunter** — receives `{diff_output}` only. No spec, no context docs, no project access. Invoke via the `bmad-review-adversarial-general` skill.
+   - **Edge Case Hunter** -- Invoke the `bmad-review-edge-case-hunter` skill in a subagent. Pass `content` = `{diff_output}`. This subagent has read access to the project.
 
-   - **Edge Case Hunter** — receives `{diff_output}` and read access to the project. Invoke via the `bmad-review-edge-case-hunter` skill.
+   - **Acceptance Auditor** (only if `{review_mode}` = `"full"`) -- A subagent that receives `{diff_output}`, the content of the file at `{spec_file}`, and any loaded context docs. Its prompt:
+     > You are an Acceptance Auditor. Review this diff against the spec and context docs. Check for: violations of acceptance criteria, deviations from spec intent, missing implementation of specified behavior, contradictions between spec constraints and actual code. Output findings as a markdown list. Each finding: one-line title, which AC/constraint it violates, and evidence from the diff.
 
-   - **Acceptance Auditor** (only if `{review_mode}` = `"full"`) — receives `{diff_output}`, the content of the file at `{spec_file}`, and any loaded context docs. Its prompt:
-     > You are an Acceptance Auditor. Review this diff against the spec and context docs. Check for: violations of acceptance criteria, deviations from spec intent, missing implementation of specified behavior, contradictions between spec constraints and actual code. Output findings as a Markdown list. Each finding: one-line title, which AC/constraint it violates, and evidence from the diff.
+2. **Subagent failure handling**: If any subagent fails, times out, or returns empty results, append the layer name to `{failed_layers}` (comma-separated) and proceed with findings from the remaining layers.
 
-3. **Subagent failure handling**: If any subagent fails, times out, or returns empty results, append the layer name to `{failed_layers}` (comma-separated) and proceed with findings from the remaining layers.
+3. If `{review_mode}` = `"no-spec"`, note to the user: "Acceptance Auditor skipped — no spec file provided."
 
-4. Collect all findings from the completed layers.
+4. **Fallback** (if subagents are not available): Generate prompt files in `{implementation_artifacts}` -- one per active reviewer:
+   - `review-blind-hunter.md` (always)
+   - `review-edge-case-hunter.md` (always)
+   - `review-acceptance-auditor.md` (only if `{review_mode}` = `"full"`)
+
+   HALT. Tell the user to run each prompt in a separate session and paste back findings. When findings are pasted, resume from this point and proceed to step 3.
+
+5. Collect all findings from the completed layers.
 
 
 ## NEXT

src/bmm-skills/4-implementation/bmad-code-review/steps/step-03-triage.md

@@ -30,18 +30,19 @@
    - Set `source` to the merged sources (e.g., `blind+edge`).
 
 3. **Classify** each finding into exactly one bucket:
-   - **decision_needed** -- There is an ambiguous choice that requires human input. The code cannot be correctly patched without knowing the user's intent. Only possible if `{review_mode}` = `"full"`.
-   - **patch** -- Code issue that is fixable without human input. The correct fix is unambiguous.
+   - **intent_gap** -- The spec/intent is incomplete; cannot resolve from existing information. Only possible if `{review_mode}` = `"full"`.
+   - **bad_spec** -- The spec should have prevented this; spec is wrong or ambiguous. Only possible if `{review_mode}` = `"full"`.
+   - **patch** -- Code issue that is trivially fixable without human input. Just needs a code change.
    - **defer** -- Pre-existing issue not caused by the current change. Real but not actionable now.
-   - **dismiss** -- Noise, false positive, or handled elsewhere.
+   - **reject** -- Noise, false positive, or handled elsewhere.
 
-   If `{review_mode}` = `"no-spec"` and a finding would otherwise be `decision_needed`, reclassify it as `patch` (if the fix is unambiguous) or `defer` (if not).
+   If `{review_mode}` = `"no-spec"` and a finding would otherwise be `intent_gap` or `bad_spec`, reclassify it as `patch` (if code-fixable) or `defer` (if not).
 
-4. **Drop** all `dismiss` findings. Record the dismiss count for the summary.
+4. **Drop** all `reject` findings. Record the reject count for the summary.
 
-5. If `{failed_layers}` is non-empty, report which layers failed before announcing results. If zero findings remain after dropping dismissed AND `{failed_layers}` is non-empty, warn the user that the review may be incomplete rather than announcing a clean review.
+5. If `{failed_layers}` is non-empty, report which layers failed before announcing results. If zero findings remain after dropping rejects AND `{failed_layers}` is non-empty, warn the user that the review may be incomplete rather than announcing a clean review.
 
-6. If zero findings remain after triage (all rejected or none raised): state "✅ Clean review — all layers passed." (Step 3 already warned if any review layers failed via `{failed_layers}`.)
+6. If zero findings remain after dropping rejects and no layers failed, note clean review.
 
 
 ## NEXT

src/bmm-skills/4-implementation/bmad-code-review/steps/step-04-present.md

@@ -1,84 +1,38 @@
 ---
-deferred_work_file: '{implementation_artifacts}/deferred-work.md'
 ---
 
-# Step 4: Present and Act
+# Step 4: Present
 
 ## RULES
 
 - YOU MUST ALWAYS SPEAK OUTPUT in your Agent communication style with the config `{communication_language}`
-- When `{spec_file}` is set, always write findings to the story file before offering action choices.
-- `decision-needed` findings must be resolved before handling `patch` findings.
+- Do NOT auto-fix anything. Present findings and let the user decide next steps.
 
 ## INSTRUCTIONS
 
-### 1. Clean review shortcut
+1. Group remaining findings by category.
 
-If zero findings remain after triage (all dismissed or none raised): state that and end the workflow.
+2. Present to the user in this order (include a section only if findings exist in that category):
 
-### 2. Write findings to the story file
+   - **Intent Gaps**: "These findings suggest the captured intent is incomplete. Consider clarifying intent before proceeding."
+     - List each with title + detail.
 
-If `{spec_file}` exists and contains a Tasks/Subtasks section, append a `### Review Findings` subsection. Write all findings in this order:
+   - **Bad Spec**: "These findings suggest the spec should be amended. Consider regenerating or amending the spec with this context:"
+     - List each with title + detail + suggested spec amendment.
 
-1. **`decision-needed`** findings (unchecked):
-   `- [ ] [Review][Decision] <Title> — <Detail>`
+   - **Patch**: "These are fixable code issues:"
+     - List each with title + detail + location (if available).
 
-2. **`patch`** findings (unchecked):
-   `- [ ] [Review][Patch] <Title> [<file>:<line>]`
+   - **Defer**: "Pre-existing issues surfaced by this review (not caused by current changes):"
+     - List each with title + detail.
 
-3. **`defer`** findings (checked off, marked deferred):
-   `- [x] [Review][Defer] <Title> [<file>:<line>] — deferred, pre-existing`
+3. Summary line: **X** intent_gap, **Y** bad_spec, **Z** patch, **W** defer findings. **R** findings rejected as noise.
 
-Also append each `defer` finding to `{deferred_work_file}` under a heading `## Deferred from: code review ({date})`. If `{spec_file}` is set, include its basename in the heading (e.g., `code review of story-3.3 (2026-03-18)`). One bullet per finding with description.
+4. If clean review (zero findings across all layers after triage): state that N findings were raised but all were classified as noise, or that no findings were raised at all (as applicable).
 
-### 3. Present summary
+5. Offer the user next steps (recommendations, not automated actions):
+   - If `patch` findings exist: "These can be addressed in a follow-up implementation pass or manually."
+   - If `intent_gap` or `bad_spec` findings exist: "Consider running the planning workflow to clarify intent or amend the spec before continuing."
+   - If only `defer` findings remain: "No action needed for this change. Deferred items are noted for future attention."
 
-Announce what was written:
-
-> **Code review complete.** <D> `decision-needed`, <P> `patch`, <W> `defer`, <R> dismissed as noise.
-
-If `{spec_file}` is set, add: `Findings written to the review findings section in {spec_file}.`
-Otherwise add: `Findings are listed above. No story file was provided, so nothing was persisted.`
-
-### 4. Resolve decision-needed findings
-
-If `decision_needed` findings exist, present each one with its detail and the options available. The user must decide — the correct fix is ambiguous without their input. Walk through each finding (or batch related ones) and get the user's call. Once resolved, each becomes a `patch`, `defer`, or is dismissed.
-
-If the user chooses to defer, ask: Quick one-line reason for deferring this item? (helps future reviews): — then append that reason to both the story file bullet and the `{deferred_work_file}` entry.
-
-**HALT** — I am waiting for your numbered choice. Reply with only the number (or "0" for batch). Do not proceed until you select an option.
-
-### 5. Handle `patch` findings
-
-If `patch` findings exist (including any resolved from step 4), HALT. Ask the user:
-
-If `{spec_file}` is set, present all three options (if >3 `patch` findings exist, also show option 0):
-
-> **How would you like to handle the <Z> `patch` findings?**
-> 0. **Batch-apply all** — automatically fix every non-controversial patch (recommended when there are many)
-> 1. **Fix them automatically** — I will apply fixes now
-> 2. **Leave as action items** — they are already in the story file
-> 3. **Walk through each** — let me show details before deciding
-
-If `{spec_file}` is **not** set, present only options 1 and 3 (omit option 2 — findings were not written to a file). If >3 `patch` findings exist, also show option 0:
-
-> **How would you like to handle the <Z> `patch` findings?**
-> 0. **Batch-apply all** — automatically fix every non-controversial patch (recommended when there are many)
-> 1. **Fix them automatically** — I will apply fixes now
-> 2. **Walk through each** — let me show details before deciding
-
-**HALT** — I am waiting for your numbered choice. Reply with only the number (or "0" for batch). Do not proceed until you select an option.
-
-- **Option 0** (only when >3 findings): Apply all non-controversial patches without per-finding confirmation. Skip any finding that requires judgment. Present a summary of changes made and any skipped findings.
-- **Option 1**: Apply each fix. After all patches are applied, present a summary of changes made. If `{spec_file}` is set, check off the items in the story file.
-- **Option 2** (only when `{spec_file}` is set): Done — findings are already written to the story.
-- **Walk through each**: Present each finding with full detail, diff context, and suggested fix. After walkthrough, re-offer the applicable options above.
-
-  **HALT** — I am waiting for your numbered choice. Reply with only the number (or "0" for batch). Do not proceed until you select an option.
-
-**✅ Code review actions complete**
-
-- Decision-needed resolved: <D>
-- Patches handled: <P>
-- Deferred: <W>
-- Dismissed: <R>
+Workflow complete.